Democrats seeking to secure the party's nomination for president are giving viewers another night to see what they've got.Here are some of the highlights of the first night of the second round of 2020 campaign debates, as the first group of 10 candidates took its turn on the stage in Detroit.___Top 1%BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. senator from Vermont: "49% of all new income is going to the top 1%."THE FACTS: That is probably exaggerated. The figure comes from a short paper by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and leading researcher on inequality, and doesn't include the value of fringe benefits, such as health insurance, or the effects of taxes and government benefit programs such as Social Security.But Saez and another Berkeley economist, Gabriel Zucman, have recently compiled a broader data set that does include those items and finds the top 1% has captured roughly 25% of the income growth since the recession ended. That's certainly a lot lower but still a substantial share. Income inequality has sharply increased in the past four decades, but since the recession, data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that it has actually narrowed slightly.___Working multiple jobsTIM RYAN, U.S. representative from Ohio: "The economic system that used to create $30, $40, $50 an hour jobs that you could have a good, solid, middle-class living now forces us to have two or three jobs just to get by."THE FACTS: Most Americans, by far, only work one job, and the number of those who juggle more than one has declined over a quarter-century.In the mid-1990s, the percentage of workers holding multiple jobs peaked at 6.5%. The rate dropped significantly afterward, even during the Great Recession, and has been hovering for nearly a decade at about 5% or a little lower. In the latest monthly figures, from June, 5.2% of workers were holding more than one job.Hispanic and Asian workers are consistently less likely than white and black workers to be holding multiple jobs. Women are more likely to be doing so than men.___Amazon's taxesSANDERS also said, "Companies like Amazon that made billions in profits did not pay one nickel in federal income tax."THE FACTS: Sanders is correct — for the previous two tax years, Amazon's own financial filings show that it expected to receive money back from the federal government, not that it owed money.According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, for the second year running, Amazon made a profit of more than $11 billion in 2018 but reported a $129 million tax rebate from the federal government.Amazon does pay state taxes and has also paid federal taxes in the past. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Amazon's overall tax rate from 2012 through 2018 was 8%."From 2012 through 2018, Amazon reported $25.4 billion in pretax U.S. income and current federal tax provisions totaling $1.9 billion," the Journal reported. "That is an 8% tax rate — low, but not zero or negative. Looking back further, since 2002, Amazon has earned $27.7 billion in global pretax profits and paid $3.6 billion in global cash income taxes, a 13% tax rate."Amazon's Securities and Exchange Commission filings in 2017 show it did not expect to owe any federal tax and in fact expected to get a $137 million refund from the federal government. It did, however, say it expected to pay $211 million to states.___Climate changePETE BUTTIGIEG, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor: "Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate."THE FACTS: Buttigieg is likely referring here to the definitive U.N. report that put the impacts of the climate crisis into stark relief.The science that Buttigieg was referring to comes from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in 2018. The report did not set a 12-year deadline for "the horizon of catastrophe," though some politicians and media outlets have characterized it as such.The report was created to assess the impact of global warming and predicted what could happen if the planet warmed to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The report looked at what could happen in 2030, 12 years from the date of publication, but the authors of the report have said that they picked that date to be helpful to countries that had promised to meet deadlines to reduce carbon emissions set under the Paris climate accord.The report found that, if the planet was able to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or under, countries would have to reduce about 45% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.___BETO O'ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on global warming: "I listen to scientists on this, and they're very clear: We don't have more than 10 years to get this right. And we won't meet that challenge with half-steps, half-measures or only half the country."THE FACTS: Scientists don't agree on an approximate time frame, let alone an exact number of years, for how much time we have left to stave off the deadliest extremes of climate change.A report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris climate agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it's not a last-chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.The report forecasts that global warming is likely to increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 2030 and 2052 "if it continues to increase at the current rate." The climate has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since before the preindustrial age.As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.CNN has contributed to this report.

DETROIT —

Democrats seeking to secure the party's nomination for president are giving viewers another night to see what they've got.

Here are some of the highlights of the first night of the second round of 2020 campaign debates, as the first group of 10 candidates took its turn on the stage in Detroit.

Advertisement

___

Top 1%

BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. senator from Vermont: "49% of all new income is going to the top 1%."

THE FACTS: That is probably exaggerated. The figure comes from a short paper by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and leading researcher on inequality, and doesn't include the value of fringe benefits, such as health insurance, or the effects of taxes and government benefit programs such as Social Security.

But Saez and another Berkeley economist, Gabriel Zucman, have recently compiled a broader data set that does include those items and finds the top 1% has captured roughly 25% of the income growth since the recession ended. That's certainly a lot lower but still a substantial share. Income inequality has sharply increased in the past four decades, but since the recession, data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that it has actually narrowed slightly.

___

Working multiple jobs

TIM RYAN, U.S. representative from Ohio: "The economic system that used to create $30, $40, $50 an hour jobs that you could have a good, solid, middle-class living now forces us to have two or three jobs just to get by."

THE FACTS: Most Americans, by far, only work one job, and the number of those who juggle more than one has declined over a quarter-century.

In the mid-1990s, the percentage of workers holding multiple jobs peaked at 6.5%. The rate dropped significantly afterward, even during the Great Recession, and has been hovering for nearly a decade at about 5% or a little lower. In the latest monthly figures, from June, 5.2% of workers were holding more than one job.

Hispanic and Asian workers are consistently less likely than white and black workers to be holding multiple jobs. Women are more likely to be doing so than men.

___

Amazon's taxes

SANDERS also said, "Companies like Amazon that made billions in profits did not pay one nickel in federal income tax."

THE FACTS: Sanders is correct — for the previous two tax years, Amazon's own financial filings show that it expected to receive money back from the federal government, not that it owed money.

Amazon does pay state taxes and has also paid federal taxes in the past. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Amazon's overall tax rate from 2012 through 2018 was 8%.

"From 2012 through 2018, Amazon reported $25.4 billion in pretax U.S. income and current federal tax provisions totaling $1.9 billion," the Journal reported. "That is an 8% tax rate — low, but not zero or negative. Looking back further, since 2002, Amazon has earned $27.7 billion in global pretax profits and paid $3.6 billion in global cash income taxes, a 13% tax rate."

Amazon's Securities and Exchange Commission filings in 2017 show it did not expect to owe any federal tax and in fact expected to get a $137 million refund from the federal government. It did, however, say it expected to pay $211 million to states.

___

Climate change

PETE BUTTIGIEG, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor: "Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate."

THE FACTS: Buttigieg is likely referring here to the definitive U.N. report that put the impacts of the climate crisis into stark relief.

The science that Buttigieg was referring to comes from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in 2018. The report did not set a 12-year deadline for "the horizon of catastrophe," though some politicians and media outlets have characterized it as such.

The report was created to assess the impact of global warming and predicted what could happen if the planet warmed to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The report looked at what could happen in 2030, 12 years from the date of publication, but the authors of the report have said that they picked that date to be helpful to countries that had promised to meet deadlines to reduce carbon emissions set under the Paris climate accord.

The report found that, if the planet was able to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or under, countries would have to reduce about 45% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.

___

BETO O'ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on global warming: "I listen to scientists on this, and they're very clear: We don't have more than 10 years to get this right. And we won't meet that challenge with half-steps, half-measures or only half the country."

THE FACTS: Scientists don't agree on an approximate time frame, let alone an exact number of years, for how much time we have left to stave off the deadliest extremes of climate change.

A report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris climate agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it's not a last-chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.

The report forecasts that global warming is likely to increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 2030 and 2052 "if it continues to increase at the current rate." The climate has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since before the preindustrial age.

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.